Defendant submitted that the search of his house started at 5:00 am. The officers and virtually all the evidence showed it started at 6:10 am. The metadata on some photographs showed 5:16 am. The court finds the camera\u2019s time hadn\u2019t been adjusted for Daylight Savings Time. United States v. Rankin, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63929 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s vehicle had a long expired tag. The stop was valid regardless of the other stated reason of a violation. The court credits that the decision to impound was made early on in the stop, and the inventory was reasonable. The written inventory policy was put into evidence. United States v. Davis, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63463 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 8, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe People have a lot to say about what Detectives Farrow and Johnson knew about petitioner, and relatively little to say about their reasons for believing evidence of crime or contraband might be found in the car. Their argument, so far as the car is concerned, boils down to the following: petitioner admitted driving to the apartment complex in the car, gang members frequently hide firearms in cars, and petitioner \u2018could have had time to hide a firearm in his car before detectives arrived on scene.\u2019 This argument fails.\u201d This 41-minute detention was unreasonable. Mosley v. Superior Court, 2024 Cal. App. LEXIS 235 (3d Dist. Apr. 5, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant submitted that the search of his house started at 5:00 am. The officers and virtually all the evidence showed it started at 6:10 am. The metadata on some photographs showed 5:16 am. The court finds the camera\u2019s time hadn\u2019t … Continue reading